Low spoke count, high tension paired spoke wheels, for bicycles

ABSTRACT

A bicycle wheel is disclosed. The wheel, which has a center plane, comprises: a bicycle wheel hub for supporting the wheel relative to an axle rotatably supported therein, a rim, a given number, at least three, pairs of first and second spokes, and adjustable threaded means for adjusting the tension in each of said spokes, independently of any adjustment to the tension in another spoke. The hub has first and second hub flanges axially displaced from one another, each on the opposite side of the wheel center plane from the other. Each of the spokes of the given number of pairs of first and second spokes has a first and a second end connected to one of the hub flanges and to the rim, respectively, so that tension is applied by the first spokes between the first hub flange and a first plurality of points which are circumferentially spaced substantially evenly around the rim on the opposite side of the wheel center plane from the first flange of the hub, and so that tension is applied by the second spokes between the second hub flange and a second plurality of points on the rim each of which is substantially circumferentially coincident with one of the first plurality of points, and is on the opposite side of the wheel center plane from the second flange of the hub. The pairs of first and second points on the rim are sufficiently close to each other that the bicycle has improved resistance to speed shimmy or wobble or front wheel induced steering inputs by comparison with a bicycle with a conventional front wheel having the given number of pairs of first and second spokes.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0001] This is a continuation-in-part of applicant's U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 09/365,957, filed Aug. 2, 1999, which, in turn, wasa continuation of applicant's U.S. patent application Ser. No.09/130,142, filed Aug. 6, 1998, now, U.S. Pat. No. 5,931,544, which, inturn, was a continuation of applicant's U.S. patent application Ser. No.08/893,902 filed Jul. 11, 1997, now abandoned, which, in turn, was acontinuation of applicant's U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/520,536filed Aug. 28, 1995, now abandoned, which, in turn, was acontinuation-in-part of applicant's U.S. patent application Ser. No.08/049,504 filed Apr. 19, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,445,439, which, inturn, was a continuation-in-part of applicant's U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 07/813,436 filed Dec. 24, 1991, now abandoned.

STATEMENT CONCERNING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT

[0002] Not applicable

REFERENCE TO A “SEQUENCE LISTING”

[0003] Not applicable

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0004] 1. Field of the Invention

[0005] The present invention relates generally to bicycles and spokedwheels therefor. More specifically, the invention relates to tensionedpaired spoked wheels which are low in weight, low in spoke count, highin spoke tension, high in stability and especially suited for use onbicycles.

[0006] 2. Description of Related Art Including Information DisclosedUnder 37 CFR 1.97 AND 37 CFR 1.98

[0007] The art of tensioned spoked wheels is one which dates back wellinto the 1800's when such wheels were developed for the Highwheelerbicycles and Ordinaries of the 1880's. Prior to that time, compressivelyloaded spoked wheels were standard fare as evidenced by Roman chariotwheels, long ago, and, more recently, by the wheels of the Ford Model Tautomobile. An example of the compressively loaded spoked wheel in thecontext of a bicycle wheel is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 452,649 (Powell).

[0008] U.S. Pat. No. 339,550 (Hudson) discloses a tensioned spoked wheelassembly from the heyday of the Ordinaries. This patent is particularlyconcerned with the construction of a rim from tubing or sheet metal andincludes a seam which is protected from the elements by being positionedunder the tire. In cross section, this wheel assembly is illustrated ashaving a toroidal rim, which is wider than a tire mounted on it.

[0009] U.S. Pat. No. 5,061,013 (Hed et al.) discloses a bicycle wheelwith good aerodynamic properties. The wheel has a toroidal rim with ahigh aspect ratio and a width exceeding the width of a tire to bemounted on it. FIG. 4 of the patent illustrates a wheel with 14 spokes.This is a reduced spoke count wheel in the sense that modernmass-produced bicycle wheels typically have 32 to 48 spokes. This is aconventionally spoked wheel in the sense that the outer ends of thefourteen spokes are connected to the rim at 14 points, which are evenlyspaced about the circumference of the rim. The inner ends of thefourteen spokes are connected to the hub with seven spokes on each sideof the hub. The fourteen-spoke wheel illustrated in FIG. 4 of the patentis a conventional radial spoked wheel. It is worth noting that theUnited States Cycle Federation (USCF) enforces a sixteen-spoke minimum,per wheel, for bicycles involved in sanctioned, mass-start races. Thistype of spoking will be referred to herein as conventional spoking.

[0010] U.S. Pat. No. 2,937,905 (Altenburger) discloses a rimconfiguration with a novel spoke connection in which the spoke nipplerests upon a surface which is canted so that spoke forces are welldistributed on the nipple seat portion of the rim.

[0011] U.S. Pat. No. 4,583,787 (Michelotti) discloses a nipple seatbushing which is slanted to achieve a better stress distribution. U.S.Pat. No. 4,729,605 (Imao et al.) discloses a spoke with a fiberreinforced central portion and two fittings, one at each end of thecentral portion.

[0012] U.S. Pat. No. 452,046 (Mather) discloses a wagon wheel having apaired spoking arrangement. The tension of the spokes in the Matherwheel cannot be adjusted independently of the tension in the otherspokes.

[0013] U.S. Pat. No. 5,104,199 issued Apr. 14, 1992 (Schlanger) anddiscloses a composite wheel made from two wheel halves, each comprisinga hub ring (26), a spoke web (29), “spokes” (42), (44), (46) and (48)and a circular member (64). The wheel halves are connected to a hub andto an annular rim to produce a wheel. Concerning the orientations of thespoke portions, the patent states:

[0014] “Additionally, FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate the spoke portions 42,44, 46 and 48 of the left wheel half 16 as being oriented directlyopposite the associated spoke portions 50, 52, 54 and 56 of the rightwheel half While this configuration minis the stress on the circularmembers 64 and 66, it is feasible to employ a staggered orientationbetween spoke portions 42, 44, 46 and 48 of the left wheel half 16 andassociated spoke portions 50, 52, 54 and 56 of the right wheel half”(Column 4, lines 23-31)

[0015] French Patent No. 1,019,285 (Menet) discloses a cycle wheel and,like the Mather patent, is concerned with eliminating lateral torsionalforces at the rim while increasing lateral rigidity of the rim.According to the patent, this is achieved with a paired spokingarrangement.

[0016] British Patent Specification No. 3056 (Lovelace I) disclosesimprovements in cycles and discloses a wheel in which “two spokes, thatis to say, one from each end of the hub, meet at the same point in therim as shewn clearly in FIG. 5, thus bringing the strain to bear equallyupon the rim and avoiding the liability to buckle, which is attendant onthe usual arrangement.” The spokes are straight pull spokes withthreaded ends, which are screwed into the flanges of the hub, and headsthat engage the rim floor. Lovelace I discloses a rear wheel with 36spokes and a front wheel with 28 spokes.

[0017] British Patent Specification No. 5968 (Lovelace II) discloseswhat are termed to be improvements on features disclosed in Lovelace I.Concerning the arrangement for attaching spokes to wheel rims, it isdisclosed that there are “two holes in the rim one in front of the otherand near together, but slightly on the skew, that is to say the holesare made in a line which is diagonal to the rim . . . ” The patentspecification goes on to disclose that “In this case three holes 18, 19and 20 are pierced in the rim 21, in line with each other, the centerhole being large enough to admit the head of the spoke v . . . a slot isthen cut connecting the holes . . . ”

[0018] U.S. Pat. No. 4,682,821 discloses a wheel with offset pairedspoking in a twenty inch, fifty-six spoke wheel which behaves, for allintents and purposes, as a disk wheel behaves because of the largenumber of spokes and the small diameter of the wheel.

[0019] U.S. Pat. No. 436,993 issued Sep. 23, 1890 (Overman) anddiscloses a wheel in which the spokes can be paired or conventionallylaced and the spokes cross the wheel center plane between the rim andthe hub. In the paired construction, the spokes in a pair are tied wherethey cross. Overman does not disclose a low spoke count wheel.

[0020] Tests have shown that each spoke of a modern quality bicyclewheel has an elastic limit, or yield point, of +300 kg in tension,approximately 4 times static tension. Since this yield point exceeds thetotal rider-machine weight by a factor of approximately 3 for a 175 lb.rider and 25 lb. bicycle, builders have become more daring in loweringspoke count. The minimum acceptable spoke count for mass-start UnitedStates Cycle Federation sanctioned races is 16 for a tensioned wheel.Conventional tensioned wheels with spoke counts below this have poorstructural characteristics and become dangerously unstable and endangernot only the individual user but also other ride-race participants.Specifically, these low spoke count conventional wheels induce asteering input under load which becomes proportionately larger with eachadditional spoke count reduction and exhibit varying friction at thewheel-tire road contact point at a lean angle in turns. Measurementsshow that on a conventional fourteen spoke radially laced front wheel,the wheel axle departs from the horizontal, alternately dipping on theleft side by net 0.015 inches when a right spoke passes over thewheel-road contact point (RCP) and then dipping net 0.015 inches on theright side when the next spoke, a left spoke, passers over the RCP.These horizontal position changes of the axle are measured with a 150 lbload applied at the axle at wheel center through the bicycle fork andare measured from axle center at the fork dropouts to the RCP on a 700Cconventional fourteen spoke radially laced front bicycle wheel.Measurements show that the distance from the axle at the right dropoutto the RCP decrease by 0.010 inches under load compared to the no-loaddistance as a right spoke is centered over the RCP and the distance fromthe axle at the left dropout to the RCP decreases by 0.025 inches underload compared to the no-load distance as the same right spoke iscentered over the RCP. These differential distance variations result ina net 0.015 inch departure of the axle from the horizontal at the forkdropouts and this departure alternates from a low left dropout with thepassage of a right spoke over the RCP to a low right dropout with thepassage of the next, a left spoke, over the RCP. The rider experiencesthese horizontal axle position changes as alternating left to right andright to left steering inputs at the handlebar with the steering barexperiencing a direction reversal with the passage of each spoke overthe RCP as the wheel rotates under load. The fourteen-spoke wheel underdiscussion exhibits 14 such steering pulses per wheel revolution. With ahigher spoke count conventional tensioned wheel these net axledepartures from the horizontal become less and move to 0 for a solidwheel and these departures become more pronounced with a further reducedspoke count.

[0021] The amplitude and frequency of these steering vibrations areinversely proportional, the kinetic energy per cycle driving them beingconstant. As wheel rotation speed goes up, frequency goes up andamplitude goes down. As rotational speed goes down, amplitude goes upand frequency goes down. This tends to obscure the phenomenon to theinattentive rider. Energy is consumed by these vibrations, detractingfrom overall vehicle efficiency. As well, internal stresses are createdin the wheel, which eventually lead to system failure even if the wheelis run on a glass-smooth surface for its life cycle. In addition, thesevibrations at the steering bar limit the lean angle a cyclist canachieve in a high-speed turn, where a constant steering angle isessential for safety once a lean angle has been established. Theseconventional wheel-induced steering inputs make a constant steeringangle impossible. These steering inputs can also be the source ofhitherto unexplained wheel shimmy on high spoke count conventionalwheels when a highly tensioned spoke lies next to a low tensioned spokeas characteristically happens at the wheel-rim seam. Almost all wheelsexhibit a variation in spoke tension at this point in the wheel and thenet differential dip at the front dropouts will be much greater than0.015 inches if adjoining spoke tension departs significantly. Thisgreater steering pulse can at certain speeds, in concert with fork andframe characteristics, vehicle load distribution and rider-induced frameflex, cause sudden, uncontrollable and extremely dangerous shimmy duringhigh vehicle speed.

[0022] At the rear of the bicycle the low spoke count conventional wheelcannot exhibit axle departure from the horizontal as the position of thedropouts is fixed in space by the closed triangles formed by the seatstays, chain stays and seat tube, the dropouts being attached at theintersection of the seat and chain stays. Axle movement being thusrestricted, the geometry of the conventional wheel, specifically thespoke pattern, pulls the rim out of the center plane of the wheel at theRCP under load. The conventional fourteen spoke radially laced frontwheel was tested under a 150 lb load applied at the axle with the axlelocked in fixture restricting any axle movement as it would be were itinstalled at the rear of a bicycle and the departure from the wheelcenter plane of the rim was measured at the RCP. During this test theRCP was free to move and the axle was fixed. The wheel exhibited alateral departure of 0.100 inches out of its center plane away from thespoke centered over the RCP. That is, when a right spoke was centeredover the RCP the rim was deflected to the left and when a left spoke wascentered over the RCP the rim was deflected to the right. The RCP wouldthus describe a sine wave over the road surface with an amplitude of0.200 inches; 0.100 inches on each side of the wheel center plane assuccessive alternate spokes pass over the RCP with the distance betweenadjoining right peak side departures measured along the vehicle centerline of travel being equal to the distance between adjoining rightspokes projected to the RCP. These lateral side-to-side deflections ofthe rim at the RCP of a loaded moving rear conventional wheel causeexcess stress in the wheel and lead to early system failure, even if thewheel is always ridden on glass-smooth surfaces. Also, the forcesdeflecting the rim laterally consume energy and this again detracts fromoverall system efficiency. During high speed cornering theseside-to-side deflections severely limit the lean angle because roadcontact friction is severely pulsed going from a minimum to a maximumand back with the passage of successive spokes over the RCP.

[0023] The differential up and down rocking of the front fork dropoutsand the lateral rear rim deflection at the RCP in loaded dynamicconditions of conventionally spoked tensioned wheels are caused by theexistence of a horizontal force gradient (considering the wheel centerplane as vertically oriented) in the rim between the spoke-rim contactpoints. The force applied by each spoke at the rim can be resolved intohorizontal and vertical components and a typical horizontal component is23 lbs. Thus a left spoke tensioned to about 150 lbs (typical) pulls therim to the left, out of the wheel center plane with a resolved force ofabout 23 lbs. The next spoke along the wheel rotation will be a rightspoke and it pulls the rim to the right by about 23 lbs if uniformtension exists. In an unloaded conventional wheel these forces are inbalance and the rim is centered in the wheel center plane, which lieshalfway between the dropouts, and a force gradient perpendicular to theplane of the wheel exists from spoke to spoke along the rim. On a lowspoke count conventional wheel the distance along the rim between spokesbecomes greater going from about 2 inches on a conventional thirty sixspoke 700C rim to 5.25 inches on a conventional fourteen spoke wheel ofthe same diameter. Thus as any given spoke passes over the RCP on a lowspoke count conventional wheel the adjoining spokes, the one directlyahead and behind, carry relatively less of the load and remainrelatively high in tension and since each of these directly adjoiningspokes is of opposite orientation of the main load carrying spoke andsince this main load carrying spoke is severely reduced in tension, nocountervailing or a severely reduced countervailing force vector remainsand thus no alternating force vector remains to balance the horizontalforce vectors of the adjoining spokes. If a right spoke is positionedover the RCP and it is substantially unloaded in tension by the systemload its horizontal force vector along with its vertical force vector isessentially reduced to a very low value and the adjoining spokes beingboth of left orientation pull the rim unopposed to the left. As theconventional bicycle wheel rolls along under load the next spoke tobecome unloaded by the system load will be a left spoke and the rim willbe deflected to the right resulting in a zigzag trace of the RCP alongthe wheel line of travel if a print were left by the RCP on thepavement. With further reduction in spoke count in a conventional wheelthe amplitude of the zigzag trace will increase and with a greater spokecount the zigzag trace will decline in amplitude, going to 0 for a solidwheel.

[0024] In order to reduce the weight of tensioned spoked wheels, wheelmakers have looked to low spoke count wheels such as the fourteen spokewheel disclosed in Hed et al. Such a construction, however, suffers frominstability and the origin and consequences of this instability arediscussed herein in great detail. In Hed et al., it is suggested thatone can produce a reduced spoke count wheel with as few as eight spokesif one uses a rim that is stiff and strong enough. As explained herein,the need for a stiff rim in low spoke count, conventionally laced wheelsarises because of a practical limitation on the minimum number of spokesthat one can use in making a conventional tensioned spoked wheel.Specifically, in such wheels, there are certain side loads that areunresolved by the spokes and are resolved only in the rim. Resolution ofthese loads in the rim creates a steering input in front wheels.Generally speaking, as the number of spokes per wheel is reduced, themagnitude of these forces increases until a point is reached at whichconventional rims simply can't hold up. One answer, suggested in Hed etal., is to use a stronger rim but this almost necessarily involvesadditional mass, however, and the goal of a reduced weight wheel issubverted in the process.

[0025] There remains a need for a reduced spoke count wheel that doesnot require a super strong rim. There is also a need, particularly inthe context of reduced spoke count wheels, for improved stability withrespect to lateral loading.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0026] The present invention is based upon the discovery of a low spokecount, high spoke tension, paired spoke wheel especially suited forbicycles and the like. The instant invention is a low spoke countbicycle wheel having a center plane. The wheel comprises a bicycle wheelhub for supporting the wheel relative to an axle rotatably supportedtherein, a rim, and nine or fewer pairs of first and second spokes. Thehub has first and second hub flanges axially displaced from one another,and on first and second sides, respectively, of the wheel center plane.Each of the spokes has a first end which is connected to one of the hubflanges or to the rim and a second end which is threadably received in anipple which is seated at a spoke bore in the rim or in the hub, so thattension is applied by the first spokes between the first hub flange anda first plurality of points which are circumferentially spacedsubstantially evenly around the rim, and are located on the second sideof the wheel center plane, and so that tension is applied by the secondspokes between the second hub flange and a second plurality of points onthe rim. Each of the second points is adjacent to an adjacent one of thefirst plurality of points, and is located on the first side of the wheelcenter plane. The first and second spokes of each pair have a combinedstatic tension in excess of 200 pounds and are connected only to the huband to the rim, and not to each other. Each of the nipples is operableto adjust the tension in the one of the spokes which is threadedthereinto, independently of any adjustment to the tension in anotherspoke.

[0027] The pairs of first and second points on the rim are sufficientlyclose to each other that, when the wheel is mounted on a bicycle, thatbicycle will have improved resistance to speed shimmy or wobble or wheelinduced steering inputs or axle deflection by comparison with thatbicycle with a conventional wheel comprising a bicycle wheel hub havingfirst and second hub flanges axially displaced from one another, each onthe opposite side of the wheel center plane from the other, a rim andmore than the given number of pairs of first and second spokes, eachspoke having a first, end and a second, threaded end connected to one ofthe hub flanges and to the rim, so that tension is applied by the firstspokes between the first hub flange and a first plurality of pointswhich are circumferentially spaced substantially evenly around the rimand so that tension is applied by the second spokes between the secondhub flange and a second plurality of points on the rim each of which ispositioned halfway between adjacent first points. The wheel isremarkably lightweight and bicycles having a front wheel according tothe invention are not susceptible to speed shimmy or wobble induced inthe front end. Bicycles having a rear wheel according to the inventionresist axle deflection and are remarkably stable.

[0028] Accordingly, it is an object of the invention to provide atensioned spoked wheel with a spoke configuration which eliminates orreduces internal, unresolved lateral spoke force vectors in the rimsassociated with prior art wheels.

[0029] It is a further object of the present invention to advance theart of reduced spoke count wheels by providing a super low spoke countwheel with remarkable stability and a positive effect on the stabilityat high speeds of any bicycle on which it is mounted.

[0030] It is a further object of the invention to greatly reduce oreliminate unresolved lateral force vectors in rims as an internal sourceof dangerous steering inputs and/or lateral rim deflections.

[0031] It is a further object of the invention to provide a bicycleincluding a front wheel according to the invention wherein the bicyclehas improved resistance to speed wobble or shimmy by comparison with abicycle having a prior art front wheel.

[0032] It is a further object of this invention to provide a super lowspoke count wheel in which the spokes in a pair cross the wheel centerplane between the hub and the rim, so as to further enhance the lateralstability of the wheel at a given spoke tension.

[0033] These and other objects and advantages of the present inventionwill no doubt become apparent to those skilled in the art after havingread this detailed description of the invention including the followingdescription of the preferred embodiment, which is illustrated by thevarious drawing figures.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING

[0034]FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an 18 spoke, radially spoked wheelshowing the paired spoking feature of the present invention.

[0035]FIG. 2 is a side view of the wheel shown in FIG. 1.

[0036]FIG. 3 is a perspective view of a 36 spoke, three cross,tangentially spoked wheel.

[0037]FIG. 4 is a side view of the wheel shown in FIG. 3.

[0038]FIG. 5 is a cross section, taken along the line 5-5, of the wheelshown in FIG. 1

[0039]FIG. 6 is cross sectional view, similar to FIG. 5 but showing aspoke configuration wherein each spoke crosses the center plane of thewheel between the hub and the rim, according to one embodiment of theinvention.

[0040]FIG. 7 is a perspective view of a prior art, conventionally laced,radially spoked, 14 spoke wheel.

[0041]FIG. 8 is a perspective view of a prior art, conventionally laced,tangentially spoked, thirty-six spoke wheel.

[0042]FIG. 9 is a side view of the wheel shown in FIG. 8.

[0043]FIG. 10 is a view, in partial cross section, of a prior art,conventionally spoked wheel mounted on a fork of a bicycle, viewed fromthe front of the bicycle looking toward the rear of the bicycle.

[0044]FIG. 11 is a perspective view of the conventionally spoked wheelshown in FIG. 10, including a portion of a bicycle frame.

[0045]FIG. 12 is a side view of a bicycle according to the invention andcomprising a frame with front and rear wheels mounted on the frame.

[0046]FIG. 13 is a perspective view of a nine spoke, radially spokedwheel according to the invention

[0047]FIG. 14 is a partial perspective view of the wheel hub and hub andspoke connections of the wheel illustrated in FIG. 13.

[0048]FIG. 15 is a cross sectional view, taken along the line 15-15 ofFIG. 13, showing details of an embodiment of the hub.

[0049]FIG. 16 is a partial, cross-sectional view of an alternativeembodiment of a hub showing hub and spoke connections in a wheelaccording to the present invention.

[0050]FIG. 17 is a partial, cross-sectional view of a second alternativeembodiment of a hub showing hub and spoke connections in a wheelaccording to the present invention.

[0051]FIG. 18 is a partial, cross-sectional view of a third alternativeembodiment of a hub showing hub and spoke connections in a wheelaccording to the present invention.

[0052]FIG. 19 is a perspective view of an eighteen spoke, radiallyspoked wheel showing a spoke pairing according to the present invention.

[0053]FIG. 20 is a cross-sectional view of the wheel shown in FIG. 19,taken along the line 20-20 of FIG. 19.

[0054]FIG. 21 is a perspective view of a twelve spoke wheel whereingroups of pairs of spokes are connected to the rim at points which arecloser to each other than they are to points at which adjacent groups ofpairs of spokes are connected to the rim, and the points on the rim towhich the spokes in each pair are connected define a line which extendsperpendicularly to the center plane of the wheel, and extends in adirection that is parallel to the axis of rotation A-A.

[0055]FIG. 22 is a perspective view of a twelve spoke wheel whereingroups of pairs of spokes are connected to the rim at points which arecloser to each other than they are to points at which adjacent groups ofpairs of spokes are connected to the rim, and wherein the spokes in eachpair cross the wheel center plane between the hub flanges and the pointson the rim to which the spokes in each pair are connected.

[0056]FIG. 23 is a perspective view of a twelve spoke wheel whereingroups of pairs of spokes are connected to the rim at points which arecloser to each other than they are to points at which adjacent groups ofpairs of spokes are connected to the rim, and the points on the rim towhich the spokes in each pair of each group are connected arecircumferentially offset from each other.

[0057]FIG. 24 is a perspective view of a twelve spoke wheel whereingroups of pairs of spokes are connected to the rim at points which arecloser to each other than they are to points at which adjacent groups ofpairs of spokes are connected to the rim, and the points on the rim towhich the spokes in each pair of each group are connected arecircumferentially offset from each other and the spokes in each paircross the wheel center plane between the hub flanges and the points onthe rim to which the spokes in each pair are connected.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0058] In the following detailed description, with reference to FIGS. 1through 12, perfect paired spoking and crossed paired spoking in thecontext of bicycle wheels, both radially and tangentially spoked, arediscussed in detail. Crossed paired spoking is an integral part of thepresently claimed invention, which is described in further detail belowwith reference to FIG. 6.

[0059] Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, an eighteen spoke, tensioned radiallyspoked wheel according to the present invention is indicated generallyat 10. The wheel 10 comprises a largely conventional hub 12 with firstand second opposed hub flanges 14 and 16. The wheel 10 has a rim 18 andis laced to the hub 12 with 18 conventional spokes 20, each having afirst, inner end 22 and a second, outer end 24. The lacing of the spokes20 is unconventional and, as shown in FIG. 1, the spokes 20 are groupedinto nine pairs and each pair is connected, at its outer end, to the rim18 at two points. Neither point is in the center plane (CP shown in FIG.5) of the wheel and the points define a line which extendsperpendicularly to the center plane of the wheel and which extends in adirection that is parallel to the axis of rotation A of the wheel 10.The ends 22 of the spokes 20 are connected to the hub flanges 14 and 16.

[0060] The hub flanges 14 and 16 are positioned so that spoke apertures,indicated at 26, are aligned as between the flanges 14 and 16 so that,as shown in FIG. 2, there is no radial offset between the ends 22 of thespokes 20 of each pair of spokes. This is preferred, although it iswithin the scope of the invention to have offset apertures in the hubflanges 14 and 16. Beyond that, it is considered to be within the scopeof the invention to connect the hub ends of spokes to opposed hubflanges so that the points of attachment at the hub flanges aresubstantially circumferentially offset from one another.

[0061] Referring now to FIGS. 3 and 4, a three cross, tangentiallyspoked 36-spoke wheel according to the invention is indicated generallyat 40. The wheel 40 comprises a largely conventional hub 42 with firstand second opposed hub flanges 44 and 46. The wheel 40 has a rim 48 andis laced to the hub 42 with thirty six conventional spokes 50, eachhaving a first, inner end 52 and a second, outer end 54. The lacing ofthe spokes 50 is similar to the lacing shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 for thewheel 10 in that, as shown in FIG. 3, the spokes 50 are grouped intoeighteen pairs and each pair is connected, at the outer ends 54 of thespokes, to the rim 48 at two points. Neither point is in the centerplane (CP shown in FIG. 5) of the wheel 40 and the points define a linewhich extends perpendicularly to the center plane of the wheel and whichextends in a direction that is parallel to the axis of rotation A of thewheel 40. The ends 52 of the spokes 50 are connected to the hub flanges44 and 46.

[0062] The hub flanges 44 and 46 are positioned so that spoke apertures,indicated at 56, are aligned as between the flanges 44 and 46 so that,as shown in FIG. 4, there is no radial offset between the ends 52 of thespokes 50 of each pair of spokes. This is preferred, although it iswithin the scope of the invention to have offset apertures in the hubflanges 44 and 46. Beyond that, it is considered to be within the scopeof the invention to connect the hub ends of spokes to opposed hubflanges so that the points of attachment at the hub flanges aresubstantially circumferentially offset from one another.

[0063] A rim, constructed in accordance with the present invention, isindicated generally at 60 in FIG. 5. The rim 60 has a tire mountingsurface 62 with nipple tightening apertures 64, a nipple flange 66, andan inner rim surface 68 with spoke apertures 70. A reinforcing flange 71connects and is connected to the tire-mounting surface 62, the nippleflange 66 and the inner rim surface 68. Preferably, the rim 60 is formedby extrusion.

[0064] First and second spokes 72 and 74 constitute a spoke pair and thedetails of their relationship to each other and to a wheel according tothe invention will now be discussed in further detail. A hub, indicatedgenerally at 76, has first and second hub flanges 78 and 80 with spokeapertures 82 for receiving spoke ends 84 and 85. These hub flanges 78and 80 are preferably aligned axially, meaning that a line connecting anaperture 82 in flange 78 with an opposed aperture 82 in flange 80, wouldextend in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation A of the hub 76.Deviations from this alignment fall within the scope of the invention,but alignment parallel to the rotational axis is preferred. Outer ends86 and 87 of the spokes 72 and 74 pass through the spoke apertures 70 inthe inner rim surface 68, through spoke apertures (not numbered) in thenipple flange 66 and are secured to nipples 88. The nipple flange spokeapertures are positioned to be aligned, in accordance with a preferredembodiment of the invention, so that a line connecting the center pointsof the nipple flange spoke apertures would extend in a directionparallel to the rotational axis A of the hub 76. This preferred althoughit is within the scope of the invention to have some circumferentialoffset between the nipple flange spoke apertures and the inner rimsurface apertures 70. In the most preferred form of the invention in thecontext of a radial spoked wheel, illustrated in FIG. 5, the planedefined by the spokes 72 and 74 contains the rotational axis A. In thecontext of a tangentially spoked wheel, such as that shown in FIGS. 3and 4, in the most preferred embodiment of the invention, the planedefined by two spokes in a pair is parallel to but does not intersectthe rotational axis A of the hub. In these two embodiments, the spokes72 and 74 are symmetrical about the center plane CP, and it is thissymmetry, which was lacking in all prior art known to the applicant in1991 and, as it turns out, is lacking in all low spoke count wheels inthe prior art now known to the applicant in 2001, which gives wheelsaccording to the preferred embodiments of the invention, remarkablestability neutralizing the lateral force vectors of the spokes tovirtually zero at all points around the rim. In the case of a rearwheel, which is dished, physical symmetry is not possible, of course,but according to the invention, symmetrical forces are applied by thespokes relative to the center plane, even where physical symmetry islacking. The force symmetry is achieved through differential tensioningso that there are opposed spoke vector forces (equal in magnitude andopposite in direction).

[0065] Another embodiment of a wheel according to the invention isindicated generally at 90 in FIG. 6. In the wheel 90, first and secondspokes 92 and 94 each cross the center plane CP of the wheel 90 betweena hub 96 and a rim 98. Because the spokes 92 and 94 do not intersect,they cannot define a plane that is parallel to the rotational axis.However, it is preferred, in the crossed spoke embodiment, to come asclose as practical to having a spoke pair consisting of spokes 92 and 94define a plane parallel to the rotational axis and, in the case of aradially spoked wheel, containing the rotational axis. Because the firstand second spokes 92 and 94 cross the center plane of the wheel betweenthe rim and the hub, they can, at a given tension, provide more lateralstability to the wheel than another spoke, at the same tension, whichdoes not cross the center plane of the wheel between the rim and thehub.

[0066] It is believed that a further understanding of the invention willbe had from a discussion of certain prior art wheels, which areillustrated in FIGS. 7 through 11.

[0067]FIG. 7 is based upon FIG. 4 of the previously identified Hed etal. patent and it shows a radially spoked fourteen-spoke wheel W mountedin a fork F. The fourteen spokes have been numbered 1-14. Odd numberedspokes are all connected to a right hub flange F₁ and all even numberedspokes are connected to a left hub flange F₂. The outer ends of all ofthe spokes are connected to the rim R and the spokes are evenly spacedabout the inner circumference of the rim R, 25.7 degrees apart (360degrees divided by 14).

[0068] A 14-spoke rim according to the present invention has 14 spokesgrouped into seven pairs and each pair of spokes is evenly spaced aboutthe inner circumference of the rim, 51.4 degrees apart (360 divided by7). Notwithstanding the fact that the circumferential distance betweenspokes is doubled in a wheel according to the present invention, bycomparison with the prior art as illustrated by Hed et al., a wheelaccording to the present invention has been shown to be more stable thanthe prior art wheel, by tests which are described below, following adescription of another prior art wheel illustrated in FIGS. 8 and 9.

[0069] A prior art, tangentially spoked wheel W, is illustrated in FIGS.8 and 9. The wheel W has thirty-six spokes S and each one is connected,equidistantly and successively, to a rim R at circumferentially spacedpoints. Specifically, each spoke is connected to the rim, in the centerplane of the wheel W, and spaced apart from adjacent spokes by 10degrees (360 degrees divided by 36). Like the wheel W shown in FIG. 7,the wheel W in FIGS. 8 and 9 has spokes which alternate between a firsthub flange F1 and a second hub flange F2. In contrast, a tangentiallyspoked 36 spoke wheel according to the present invention, has pairs ofspokes spaced 20 degrees apart from adjacent pairs, as shown in FIGS. 3and 4.

[0070] Wheels according to the present invention have been testedagainst some prior art wheels in order to compare rim rigidity in awheel according to the present invention with rim rigidity in prior artwheels. The wheels were tested in the following manner.

[0071] A wheel was mounted in a Park wheel-truing stand, which firmlyholds a bicycle wheel axle with no discernable deflection when moderateloads are applied to the wheel. A load of 23 lbs. was applied to therim, in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation of the wheel, andthe deflection of the rim, in that direction, was measured. In eachcase, the load was applied sequentially to each side of the rim at apoint immediately adjacent to the point where a spoke, or, in the caseof the present invention, a pair of spokes, was connected to the rim.

[0072] Before testing, each wheel was built, by the same builder, withPhil hubs, to uniform standards, with the recognition that completeuniformity is not possible with bicycle wheels. During testing, multiplemeasurements were taken on each side of the rim and each deflection wasrecorded. Results, reported herein, are averages of these measurements.In the table below, test results are reported for nine control wheels,identified C1 through C10, and 2 wheels made in accordance with thepreferred embodiment of the invention, identified Ex1 and Ex2. Some ofthe wheels were radially laced and others were Tangentially laced; thelatter type are identified by a number, other than 0, in the columnheaded “Number of Spoke Crosses”. The term “tubular” identifies a rimthat is designed for a sew-up or tubular tire. FRONT WHEELS NumberNumber of Rim Type/ of spoke Deflection in Example or weight (g) spokescrosses inches Control ID Matrix ISO C/ 32 3 0.250 C1 500 Sun M19A/ 14 00.271 Ex1 350 (tubular) Matrix ISO CII/ 32 3 0.285 C2 405 Mavic Open 280 0.360 C3 4CD/450 AMBROISIO 12 0 0.401 C4 AERO dynamic DUREX marchiodepositato allumag monocellulare/ 500 (tubular) Araya Aero4/ 14 0 0.417C5 350 (tubular)

[0073] REAR WHEELS Number Number of Rim Type/ of spoke Deflection inExample or weight (g) spokes crosses inches Control ID Sun M19A/ 20 20.257 Ex2 350 (tubular) Matrix ISOC/ 36 3 0.265 C6 500 Mavic Open 36 30.280 C7 4CD/450 Matrix ISOCII/ 36 3 0.295 C8 405 Sun (19.3 mm 20 20.310 C9 rim width)/400 (estimated) Mavic Open 32 3 0.345 C10 4CD/450

[0074] The data reported in the preceding tables demonstrates that awheel according to the present invention has excellent lateral stabilityat the rim, even by comparison with higher spoke count wheels. Forexample, Ex1 wheel, a 14 spoke radially laced wheel according to theinvention exhibited 0.271-inch deflection. The only front wheel withlower deflection was C1, a 32 spoke, tangentially laced, three crosswheel. The Ex1 wheel had lower deflection than another 32 spoke,tangentially laced, three cross wheel, namely, C2. By comparison withC4, a 14 spoke radially laced wheel according to the prior art, Ex1,with 14 spokes laced, according to the present invention, with 7 pairsof spokes defining planes parallel to and intersecting the rotationalaxis, had 35% less deflection. The rear, tangentially laced wheelaccording to the invention was Ex2, and it had less deflection than allof the control rear wheels, laced according to the prior art, that weretested.

[0075] The foregoing static analyses of prior art wheels and wheelsaccording to the present invention explains the relationship betweenconventional spoking and axle deflection and lateral deflection at therim, under load. The problems which arise in a dynamic bicycle systemincluding conventionally spoked wheels will now be considered vis a visthe advantages of a dynamic bicycle system including a front wheelaccording to the present invention.

[0076] The subject of speed wobble or shimmy in bicycles has receivedmuch attention because it is extremely dangerous. Shimmy is known tooccur in bicycles having front wheels that are conventionally spoked.Speed wobble or shimmy is used herein to refer to a condition where theentire front end of a bicycle oscillates at a frequency of several timesper second and wherein the steering bar and the head tube moveslaterally a substantial distance during each oscillation. The distancecan be more than one inch in severe instances and a rider of a bikewhich is oscillating to this extent at high speed is in a “frighteningsituation.” John Kukoda, Bicycling, April, 1992, page 152. Theoriesabound about how to stop shimmy when it occurs. According to JohnKukoda,

[0077] “factors [which contribute to speed shimmy or wobble] include atight headset that inhibits free turning of the fork; a short wheelbaseand or chainstays; frame flexibility along the top tube (especially inlarge frame sizes); light wheels; untrue wheels; insufficient trail(usually the result of too much fork rake on a frame with a steep headtube angle); a heavily loaded handlebar bag; flexy loaded racks; andimproperly packed panniers that allow the load to shift side to side.”

[0078] Until now, no one has addressed the problem to the extent neededto provide a system in which the onset of shimmy is prevented. For thereasons discussed below, a bicycle according to the present invention isnot susceptible to speed wobble or shimmy.

[0079] The present analysis begins with the recognition that all wheelsdeform, to some extent, at the road contact point (RCP) under load. As aconsequence, when a wheel is loaded, the radius of the wheel between thehub and the RCP is reduced and the radius elsewhere in the wheel isincreased. There is a flat spot in the rim adjacent the RCP in a loadedwheel. The length of the flat spot is proportional to the pliability orflexibility of the rim. In a tensioned spoked wheel, the flat spotphenomenon partially unloads the spokes at and near the RCP while thetension in the other spokes is increased.

[0080] Referring now to FIGS. 10 and 11, there is illustrated aconventionally radially spoked 14 spoke front wheel W mounted in thefork F of a bicycle frame (only a portion of the frame F is illustratedin FIG. 11). The fourteen spokes have been numbered 1-14. Odd numberedspokes are all connected to a right hub flange F_(R) and all evennumbered spokes are connected to a left hub flange F_(L). Only spokes1-8 are shown in FIG. 10. Let's consider the case, discussed above inthe description of the prior art section, where each spoke in the wheelW (FIGS. 10 and 11) is loaded with a 200 pound tensile force when thewheel is unloaded. When a one hundred and fifty pound load is applieddownwardly through the fork which comprises a fork crown FC, a rightfork blade FB_(R) and a left fork blade FB_(L), the load is splitbetween the fork blades FB which transmit 75 pound loads through forkends FE_(R) and FE_(L) to the ends E_(R) and E_(L) of an axle A. Spoke 8intersects the RCP and has its tension reduced approximately 75 poundsso that its tension is reduced to about 125 pounds. As noted previously,measurements show that, under the stated load with spoke 8, which isattached to the left hub flange F_(L), centered over the RCP, the leftend E_(L) of the axle A deflects downwardly, as indicated by the arrowD_(L), 0.010 inches while the right end E_(R) of the axle A deflectsdownwardly a distance of 0.025 inches as indicated by the arrow D_(R).When the wheel W is rotated so that a spoke such as 7 that is attachedto the right hub flange F_(R), is centered over the RCP (not shown), theleft end E_(L) of the axle A deflects downwardly 0.025 inches (notshown) while the right end E_(R) of the axle A deflects downwardly adistance of 0.010 inches (not shown). In the fourteen spoke wheel Wunder consideration, assuming all spokes are in equal tension, duringone revolution under load, the axle A will depart from a horizontalorientation 14 times a distance of 0.015 inches over its length, seventimes at the left end E_(L) of the axle A and seven times at the rightend E_(R) of the axle A, alternatingly. These deflections generateforces which are transmitted through, and largely dissipated in the forkblades FB, the fork crown FC, the steering tube ST and, in some cases,the rest of the bicycle frame. When the forces are transmitted throughthe fork blades FB to the head tube HT, it will deflect to the left, asindicated by the arrow D_(HT), and the fork crown FC (which is mountedon the steering tube, not shown) turns or rotates relative to the headtube HT as indicated by the arrow FC_(R). So long as the bicycle has aproper trail, i.e., the axis of the head tube intersects the road aheadof the road contact point RCP, the head tube deflection D_(HT) willgenerate a steering impulse which is indicated by the arrow SI_(S). Thesubscript S in SI_(S) identifies this impulse as one that is generatedbecause of the spoke configuration of the wheel W. When the wheel W isrolling, and the next spoke, ie., spoke 9 which is connected to theright wheel flange F_(R), is centered over the RCP (not shown), thedirections of the vectors or arrows SI_(S), FC_(R), and D_(HT) arereversed, and the magnitude of D_(L) is increased to 0.025 inches whilethe magnitude of D_(R) is decreased to 0.010 inches. Modem bicycles canaccommodate these forces with very little disturbance detected by therider, so long as the spoke count is high enough. In low spoke countwheels, such as the fourteen spoker illustrated in FIGS. 10 and 11, thesteering impulses generated due to the conventional spoking pattern arevery noticeable, although they can generally be tolerated except indemanding conditions such as racing with high lean angle cornering. Indemanding conditions, the steering impulses induced by a low spoke countfront wheel with a conventional spoking pattern can lift the front wheeloff the ground in high lean angle turns.

[0081] The situation is different in the case of a rear wheel on anaxle, which is mounted on rear dropouts, because the seat stay and thechain stay do not have the flexibility of the fork blades. Consequently,there is little vertical axle deflection in the case of a rear wheel.However, the forces attributable to conventional spoking, discussedabove, in the context of a front wheel cause the rim of a conventionallyspoked rear wheel to be deflected at the RCP, away from the spokecentered over the RCP at any given time during revolution which, ineffect, causes the RCP of a conventionally spoked rear wheel to trace asinusoidal pattern on the road as a loaded rear wheel rolls along. Inthe case of the fourteen spoke conventional wheel mounted in a Parktruing stand as it would be at the rear of a bicycle, with the axlerestrained and a one hundred and fifty pound load applied, a rightdeparture of the RCP of 0.1 inch was measured from the wheel centerplane when a left spoke was centered over the RCP and a left departureof the RCP of 0.1 inch was measured from the wheel center plane when aright spoke was centered over the RCP. This presents a problem in thecase of high lean angle turns because the force of the rear wheelagainst the road surface is pulsed which can allow the rear wheel tolose static friction with the road surface in a worst case high leanangle turn scenario. In the context of straight or level riding, thesinusoidal tracing of the rear RCP relative to the vehicle line oftravel in effect means that the rear RCP is shifted, left to right andright to left, of the vehicle center of mass which normally lies in therear wheel center plane, with the passage of successive spokes over therear RCP. This repetitive shift of the rear RCP relative to the systemcenter of mass causes the entire frame to move left to right and rightto left and, to the extent that the head tube, as part of the frame, isleaned to the right or to the left, a steering pulse is induced to theleft or to the right, respectively and it is now appreciated that aconventionally spoke rear wheel can and does induce steering pulsesquite independently of the front wheel under all riding conditions.

[0082] The foregoing analysis of the conventionally laced front wheel isbased upon the ideal condition that all of the spokes in the wheel W areequally tensioned. In the real world, rims that are true do not haveequally tensioned spokes. Instead, one of the spokes will be tighterthan the rest and it is frequently adjacent to spokes that are insubstantially less tension. Accordingly, it will be appreciated that, atleast once per revolution, the horizontal axle deflections in aconventionally spoked fourteen spoke front wheel will be substantiallygreater than those reported above. In any case, as a result of the axledeflections and associated fork blade deflections under the conditionillustrated in FIGS. 10 and 11, there are steering impulses, indicatedby the arrow SI_(S) in FIG. 11, and the impulse generated when thetightest spoke passes over the road contact point RCP, is the mostsubstantial. As the speed of wheel rotation increases, so too doesanother steering impulse which is generated during rotation of aconventionally spoked front wheel.

[0083] At high rates of rotation, the wheel W develops substantialgyroscopic inertia, which is proportional to the rate of rotation. Thedeflections of the axle A due to the conventional spoking patterndescribed above with reference to FIGS. 10 and 11, are transmitted tothe steering tube and ultimately, as a result of fork rake, trail andhead tube angle, result in cyclic rotational steering impulses seen atthe handle bar, at all riding speeds. As described previously, thesteering bar rotates clockwise and counter-clockwise, from the view ofthe rider, with the passage of a left spoke and a right spoke,respectively, over the RCP as the wheel rolls along under load causingthe front of the front wheel to move right and left, respectively. Athigh rates of rotation (not shown), the wheel W of FIGS. 10 and 11develops substantial gyroscopic inertia, which is proportional to therate of rotation. The deflections of the axle A, described above withreference to FIGS. 10 and 11, translate, at high rotational speeds, torotation of the axle in a substantially horizontal plane, about asubstantially vertical axis VA, illustrated in FIG. 11, and passingthrough the mid-point of the axle. This rotation of the axle about theaxis VA is known as precession. This precessional axle movement is inthe same direction as the steering impulse SI_(S) described previouslyas attributable to the conventional spoking pattern In FIG. 11, arrowSI_(G) represents the force generated, at high rotational speeds, as theaxle dips lower on the right as represented by D_(R). Arrow SI_(G)reflects movement of the front F of the wheel W which is due togyroscopic inertia and precession. Arrow SI_(S) reflects movement of thefront F of the wheel W due to the conventional spoke pattern inducedsteering impulse. The two movements or impulses SI_(S) and SI_(G) aresubstantially in phase and, as a consequence, their net effect on thewheel W is cumulative. In the case of the rotating wheel W of FIG. 11,the precession motion translates into a second steering impulse,indicated in FIG. 11 by the multi-headed arrow SI_(G), and that steeringimpulse is in the same direction as the spoke induced steering impulseSI_(S). The arrow SI_(G) is multi-headed to reflect its variablemagnitude, which is a function of the disturbing force (relativelyconstant) and the rate at which the wheel is rotating. As the rate ofrotation increases, so too does the magnitude of the steering impulseSI_(G) associated with the precession motion of the axle/axis. Theconsequence of the combination of the steering impulses SI_(S) andSI_(G) at low speeds may be tolerable. At higher speeds, however, themagnitude of the SI_(G) will reach a point where, combined with theSI_(S), speed shimmy or wobble occurs. The precise point or speed atwhich speed wobble or shimmy is induced is affected by the factorslisted above in the quotation from Bicycling. However, the source ofspeed wobble or shimmy is the steering impulse generated as aconsequence of the conventional spoking pattern. At certain bicyclesspeeds or wheel rotation frequencies, an oscillating vibration is set upwhich is fed, on one side by the forces associated with axle deflectionand precession motion in the wheel and, on the other side, by the forkreaction forces which tend to return the axle to an undeflectedposition. As noted above, the magnitude of the precession motionincreases with speed and there is a speed or speed within the dynamicbicycle system at which the magnitude of the vibrations increases beyondthe capacity of the mass damper constituting the rider, the fork andother frame members to dampen the vibration and the result is the welldocumented speed wobble or shimmy where the entire bicycle beginsvibrating wildly. This condition has mystified experts in the bicyclefield, although they have come to recognize some of the factors, listedabove, which influence the onset of speed wobble or shimmy. Theseobservations are consistent with the explanation above, but so far, noone else has recognized that the conventional spoking pattern is thesource of this evil and dangerous phenomenon.

[0084] The bicycle of the present invention solves the problem of speedwobble or shimmy by eliminating its source, namely, the steeringimpulses generated as a result of the conventional pattern of spoking inwheels. Without the forces generated when the axles deflect, there wouldbe no exciting impulses to trigger the spoke induced steering impulsesand the associated precession and rocking motions and, thus, no energyto drive the vibration at levels which exceed the capacity of the loadedbicycle system (which acts as a mass damper) to absorb them. The lowspoke count wheels of the present invention have greater lateralstability than conventionally spoked wheels, even though high tensionspokes are paired together, doubling the circumferential distancebetween spokes by comparison with a conventionally spoked wheel. Thelower spoke count wheels of the present invention have greater lateralstability than paired spoke wheels in which the spokes do not cross thecenter plane of the wheel between the hub and the rim

[0085] Referring now to FIG. 12, a bicycle according to the presentinvention is indicated generally at 100. The bicycle 100 comprises afront wheel 102, which is an eighteen-spoke wheel illustrated in FIGS. 1and 2. The wheel 102 includes hub flanges 104 (one is visible in FIG.11) which are supported on a hub 106 for rotation about an axle 108,which is mounted in the ends 110 of a fork 112. The fork 112 comprisesfork blades 114 supported in a fork crown 116, which, in turn, issupported in a head tube 118. The bicycle further comprises a top tube120, a seat tube 122, a down tube 124, lugs 126, a bottom bracket 128,chain stays 130 and seat stays 132. A rear wheel 134, correspondinggenerally with the wheel 40 shown in FIGS. 3 and 4, is mounted forrotation about an axle 136 which is supported in dropouts 138. It ispreferred that the rear wheel have crossed paired spoking. However, abicycle according to the present invention may include a conventionalrear wheel and a front wheel with crossed paired spoking according tothe present invention. As a consequence, the bicycle 100 will not besusceptible to speed wobble or shimmy originating in the front wheel. Inanother embodiment, the bicycle comprises a front wheel and the rearwheel 134, again, preferably with crossed paired spoking, and, in thisembodiment, the sinusoidal tracking of the rear wheel is eliminated. Inthe most preferred embodiment, the bicycle comprises the front wheel 102and the rear wheel 134, both with crossed paired spoking.

[0086] It is believed that the foregoing description demonstrates that awheel with a given spoke count, according to the present invention, hasbetter stability than conventionally laced wheels of the given number ofspokes and, in most cases, better stability than conventionally lacedwheels having more than the given number of spokes. It has been furtherdemonstrated that a bicycle including a front wheel according to thepresent invention is not susceptible to the age-old problem of speedshimny or wobble.

[0087] Referring now to FIG. 21, a wheel, indicated generally at 280,has twelve spokes 282, a rim 284 and a hub 286. Each spoke 282 is pairedwith another spoke 282 and each pair of spokes is grouped with anotherpair of spokes so that outer ends of the spokes in a given group areconnected to the rim 284 at points which are closer together than thedistance between points on the rim to which spokes in an adjacent groupare connected. At the rim 284, the spokes are paired like the spokes 20in the wheel 10 shown in FIG. 1.

[0088] Referring now to FIG. 22, a wheel, indicated generally at 290,has twelve spokes 292, a rim 294 and a hub 296. Each spoke 292 is pairedwith another spoke 292 and each spoke 292 in a pair crosses the wheelcenter plane between the rim 294 and the hub 296, like the spokes 92 and94 in the wheel 90 shown in FIG. 6. Each pair of spokes 292 is groupedwith another pair of spokes 292 so that outer ends of the spokes 292 ina given group are connected to the rim 294 at points which are closertogether than the distance between points on the rim 294 to which spokesin an adjacent group are connected.

[0089] Referring now to FIG. 23, a wheel, indicated generally at 300,has twelve spokes 302, a rim 304 and a hub 306. Each spoke 302 is pairedwith another spoke 302 and each spoke 302 in a pair is connected to therim at a point which is circumferentially offset by at least about 0.3inch from the rim point to which the other spoke 302 in the pair isconnected. Each pair of spokes 302 is grouped with another pair ofspokes 302 so that outer ends of the spokes 302 in a given group areconnected to the rim 304 at points which are closer together than thedistance between points on the rim 304 to which spokes in an adjacentgroup are connected. The spokes 302 in a pair are connected to the rimin the manner shown for spokes 260 in the wheel 250 shown in FIG. 19.

[0090] Referring now to FIG. 24, a wheel, indicated generally at 310,has twelve spokes 312, a rim 314 and a hub 316. Each spoke 312 is pairedwith another spoke 312 and each spoke 312 in a pair crosses the wheelcenter plane between the rim 314 and the hub 316, like the spokes 92 and94 in the wheel 90 shown in FIG. 6. Each spoke 312 is paired withanother spoke 312 and each spoke 312 in a pair is connected to the rim314 at a point which is circumferentially offset by at least about 0.3inch from the rim point to which the other spoke 312 in the pair isconnected. Each pair of spokes 312 is grouped with another pair ofspokes 312 so that outer ends of the spokes 312 in a given group areconnected to the rim 314 at points which are closer together than thedistance between points on the rim 314 to which spokes in an adjacentgroup are connected.

[0091] It will be appreciated that the invention is not limited to theforegoing detailed description but, rather, has broad applications inthe field of wheels. For example, Tioga® has introduced a wheel in whichconventional spokes are replaced with a Kevlar® lacing which providestension between the rim and hub in what is believed to be a conventionalfashion, that is, lacing is connected to the rim at points which areevenly, circumferentially spaced, at each point, tension is eitherapplied from the left side of the hub or the right side of the hub asopposed to, in the case of the present invention, the case where pairsor groups of pairs of spokes or other tensioning members apply tensionfrom the left and right side of the hub to points which are closertogether than the distance between the groups or pairs of clusters, orat points which are circumferentially coincident, so that unresolvedside or lateral forces are reduced, by comparison with a wheel lacedaccording to the prior art, or eliminated.

[0092] Referring now to FIG. 13, a wheel according to the presentlyclaimed invention is indicated generally at 150. The wheel 150 comprisesa rim 152, a hub indicated generally at 154 and including a left hubflange 156 and a right hub flange 158 and a total of nine spokes, six ofwhich are paired and three of which are in or immediately adjacent tothe center plane (previously defined) of the wheel 150. The spoke pairscomprise first spokes 160 and second spokes 162. The paired spokes 160and 162 are connected to the rim 152 at points which are substantiallycircumferentially coincident. In FIG. 13, the rim connection points ofeach spoke pair are exactly circumferentially coincident although it hasbeen determined that some offset can be tolerated without seriouslyimpairing a wheels resistance to speed wobble or shinny. Excellentresults have been obtained with about one half inch of offset whichmakes the present invention adaptable to most conventional rims. Thepaired spokes 160 are connected to the left hub flange 156 and thepaired spokes 162 are connected to the right hub flange 158. It ispreferred that the hub flanges 156 and 158 be symmetrical about thewheel center plane although, as explained above, good results can beobtained if there is a minor offset of one hub flange relative to theother.

[0093] Between the paired spokes, unpaired spokes 164 are eachconnected, at one end to the rim 152 and at the other end to a boss 166on the hub 154. In a most preferred embodiment, the unpaired spokes arecoincident with the center plane of the wheel 150 so that they exertvirtually no lateral force vectors on the rim 152.

[0094] The bosses 166 are shown in more detail in FIGS. 14 and 15. Thebosses 166 are welded to the central portion 168 of the hub 154. Thebosses comprise a base portion 170 and a spoke receiving portion 172. Asshown in FIG. 15, the spoke-receiving portion 172 is internally threadedto receive a threaded portion 174 of the unpaired spokes 164 and tosupport the unpaired spokes in a radial orientation relative to the hub.In this embodiment, it is preferred that the unpaired spokes 164 bethreaded at both ends so that their tension can be adjusted withconventional nipples at the rim, after the threaded portions 174 areengaged in the spoke receiving portions 172 of the bosses 166.

[0095] The three unpaired spokes 164 are positioned between the spokepairs 160 and 162, preferably at the mid-point between the pairedspokes. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 13, the spoke pairs 160and 162 are offset from other spoke pairs by one hundred and twentydegrees and the unpaired spokes 164 are sixty degrees from the spokepairs.

[0096] Referring now to FIG. 16, a nipple 180 with a head 182 and aninternally threaded shank 184 secures the unpaired spoke 164 to thecentral portion 168 of the hub 154. The nipple shank 184 is received inan aperture in the central portion 168 of the hub and the nipple head182 engages an inside surface 186 of the hub central portion 168. It ispreferred that the aperture in the hub central portion 168 lie in thecenter plane of the wheel so that the unpaired spokes 164 lie within thecenter plane of the wheel.

[0097] Referring now to FIG. 17, a collar 190 has three bosses 192 (onlyone is shown in FIG. 17) offset one hundred and twenty degrees from eachother. The collar is sized to slide over the central portion 168 of thehub 154 and may be secured to the central portion with suitableadhesives, or by welding or with fasteners (not shown), as desired. Theboss 192 has an internally threaded bore for receiving a threaded end ofan unpaired spoke and supporting it in a radial orientation relative tothe hub, in or immediately adjacent to the center plane of the wheel.

[0098] Referring now to FIG. 18, an unpaired spoke 200 with a head 202is supported in the central portion 168 of the hub 154. The head 202engages the inside surface 186 of the hub central portion 168. In orderto assemble this embodiment, an access hole (not shown) would beprovided in the hub central portion, opposite the aperture through whichthe unpaired spoke is received. With the axle (not shown) removed, thespoke would be fed through the access aperture, which would have adiameter greater than the diameter of the spoke head and through theaperture through which the unpaired spoke is received until the head 202engages the inside surface 186 of the hub central portion 168. Theaccess apertures should then be plugged or sealed.

[0099] Referring now to FIGS. 19 and 20, a modified version of theeighteen spoke, tensioned radially spoked wheel shown in FIGS. 1 and 2is indicated generally at 250. The wheel 250 comprises a largelyconventional hub 252 with first and second opposed hub flanges 254 and256. The wheel 250 has a rim 258 which is laced to the hub 252 with 18conventional spokes 260, each having a first, inner end 262 and asecond, outer end 264. A preferred rim is one that is commerciallyavailable under the name Zipp, including the models 340 and 440. Theserim are made from a carbon fiber composite with an internal metal insert266 (FIG. 20). The rims are light in weight and are very well adaptedfor the type of spoking shown in FIG. 19. Previous experience with metalrims with the exact pairing illustrated in FIG. 1 demonstrates thatexact pairing of spokes at the rim can exceed the capacity of such rims.

[0100] The spokes 260 are paired in the sense that a spoke from the hubflange 254 and a spoke from the hub flange 256 are connected to the rim258 a very short distance apart. It has been determined that the spokingpattern disclosed in FIG. 19 affords virtually the same resistance tospeed wobble and shimny as the spoking pattern disclosed in FIGS. 1through 3, but is much easier to produce and puts far less strain on therim and the connection between the rim and the spokes. Accordingly, interms of wheels according to the present invention incorporatingcommercially available rims, the embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 19 and20 is preferred.

[0101] Preferably, the hub flanges 254 and 256 are positioned so thatspoke apertures, indicated at 268, are aligned as between the flanges254 and 256 although it is within the scope of the invention to haveslightly offset apertures in the hub flanges 254 and 256.

[0102] The outer ends 264 of the spokes 260 are connected to the rim bya conventional nipple 270, which is seated upon the metal insert 266.The outer ends 264 of a given spoke pair are offset, as discussed above,and excellent results have been obtained with wheels where the outerends of a given spoke pair were offset by one half of an inch as well as0.35 inches. In the case where, as shown in FIG. 20, the outer ends 264of the spokes 19 are connected to the rim 258 in the center plane of thewheel 250, the minimum offset between ends of spokes in a pair is theminimum distance required for clearance between the nipples 270. Themaximum distance, in terms of the present invention, is the distancebeyond which a wheel has reduced resistance to speed wobble or shimmy bycomparison with a conventionally spoked wheel having the same number ofspokes.

[0103] In the embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 19 and 20, it is notedthat a line defined by two spokes in a given pair intersect what haspreviously been defined as the wheel center plane within the confines ofthe rim 258.

[0104] It will be appreciated that other methods may be employed tosupport unpaired spokes in or immediately adjacent to the center planeof a wheel according to the presently claimed invention. The inventionis concerned with a radially spoked wheel with alternating paired andunpaired spokes where none of the spokes exert a significant lateral,unresolved force on the rim. The unpaired spokes, because they arepositioned in or immediately adjacent to the center plane of the wheel,exert no or virtually no lateral force on the rim. The spokes of eachspoke pair exert substantially equal and opposite lateral forces on therim, i.e., these lateral forces are resolved by the lateral forces fromthe other spoke in the pair. The importance and the advantages of pairedspoking in a bicycle wheel are thoroughly discussed above with referenceto FIGS. 1 through 12.

[0105] The foregoing description is intended to enable one skilled inthe art to make and use the instant invention and not to limit it exceptby reference to the following claims.

1. A bicycle wheel having a center plane and comprising: a bicycle wheelhub for supporting the wheel relative to an axle rotatably supportedtherein, said hub having first and second hub flanges axially displacedfrom one another, each on the opposite side of the wheel center planefrom the other, a rim, a given number, at least three, pairs of firstand second spokes, each of said spokes having a first and a second endconnected to one of said hub flanges and to said rim, respectively, sothat tension is applied by said first spokes between the first hubflange and a first plurality of points which are circumferentiallyspaced substantially evenly around the rim on the opposite side of thewheel center plane from the first flange of said hub, and so thattension is applied by said second spokes between the second hub flangeand a second plurality of points on said rim each of which issubstantially circumferentially coincident with one of said firstplurality of points, and is on the opposite side of the wheel centerplane from the second flange of said hub, and adjustable threaded meansfor adjusting the tension in said spokes, independently of anyadjustment to the tension in another spoke, wherein each of said pairsof first and second points on said rim are sufficiently close to eachother so that the bicycle has improved resistance to speed shimmy orwobble or front wheel induced steering inputs by comparison with abicycle with a conventional front wheel comprising a bicycle wheel hubhaving first and second hub flanges axially displaced from one another,each on the opposite side of the wheel center plane from the other, arim and the given number of pairs of first and second spokes each havinga first and a second end connected to one of the hub flanges and to therim, respectively, so that tension is applied by the first spokesbetween the first hub flange and a first plurality of points which arecircumferentially spaced substantially evenly around the rim and so thattension is applied by the second spokes between the second hub flangeand a second plurality of points on the rim each of which is positionedhalfway between adjacent first points
 2. A bicycle wheel having a centerplane and comprising: a bicycle wheel hub for supporting the wheelrelative to an axle rotatably supported therein, said hub having firstand second hub flanges axially displaced from one another, each on theopposite side of the wheel center plane from the other, a rim, a givennumber of pairs of first and second spokes, each of said spokes having afirst and a second end connected to one of said hub flanges and to saidrim, respectively, so that tension is applied by said first spokesbetween the first hub flange and a first plurality of points which arecircumferentially spaced substantially evenly around the rim on theopposite side of the wheel center plane from the first flange of saidhub, and so that tension is applied by said second spokes between thesecond hub flange and a second plurality of points on said rim each ofwhich is adjacent to but circumferentially offset at least about 0.3inch from the adjacent one of said first plurality of points, and is onthe opposite side of the wheel center plane from the second flange ofsaid hub, adjustable threaded means for adjusting the tension in saidspokes, independently of any adjustment to the tension in another spoke,wherein each of said pairs of first and second points on said rim aresufficiently close to each other so that, when said wheel is mounted ona bicycle, that bicycle will have improved resistance to speed shimmy orwobble or wheel induced steering inputs or axle deflection by comparisonwith that bicycle with a conventional wheel comprising a bicycle wheelhub having first and second hub flanges axially displaced from oneanother, each on the opposite side of the wheel center plane from theother, a rim and the given number of pairs of first and second spokeseach having a first and a second end connected to one of the hub flangesand to the rim, respectively, so that tension is applied by the firstspokes between the first hub flange and a first plurality of pointswhich are circumferentially spaced substantially evenly around the rimand so that tension is applied by the second spokes between the secondhub flange and a second plurality of points on the rim each of which ispositioned halfway between adjacent first points.
 3. A bicycle wheel asclaimed in claim 1 wherein the first and second spokes of said at leastthree pairs are single spokes, as distinguished from crossed oruncrossed pairs or groups of pairs of spokes.
 4. A bicycle wheel asclaimed in claim 2 wherein the first and second spokes of said at leastthree pairs are single spokes, as distinguished from crossed oruncrossed pairs or groups of pairs of spokes.
 5. The wheel claimed inclaim 1 wherein said spokes are oriented tangentially relative to saidhub flanges.
 6. A bicycle wheel having a center plane and comprising: abicycle wheel hub for supporting the wheel relative to an axle rotatablysupported therein, said hub having first and second hub flanges axiallydisplaced from one another, each on the opposite side of the wheelcenter plane from the other, a rim, a given number, at least three, ofgroups of pairs of first and second spokes, each of said spokes having afirst and a second end connected to one of said hub flanges and to saidrim, respectively, so that tension is applied by said first spokesbetween the first hub flange and a first plurality of groups of pointswhich are circumferentially spaced substantially evenly around the rimand so that tension is applied by said second spokes between the secondhub flange and a second plurality of groups of points on said rim eachof which points is substantially circumferentially coincident with oneof said first plurality of groups of points, adjustable threaded meansfor adjusting the tension in said spokes, independently of anyadjustment to the tension in another spoke, wherein said groups of pairsof first and second points on said rim are sufficiently close to eachother so that a bicycle on which the wheel is mounted has improvedresistance to speed shimmy or wobble or wheel induced steering inputs bycomparison with a bicycle where the aforesaid wheel is replaced by aconventional wheel comprising a bicycle wheel hub having first andsecond hub flanges axially displaced from one another, each on theopposite side of the wheel center plane from the other, a rim and thegiven number of pairs of first and second spokes each having a first anda second end connected to one of the hub flanges and to the rim,respectively, so that tension is applied by the first spokes between thefirst hub flange and a first plurality of points which arecircumferentially spaced substantially evenly around the rim and so thattension is applied by the second spokes between the second hub flangeand a second plurality of points on the rim each of which is positionedhalfway between adjacent first points.
 7. The bicycle wheel claimed inclaim 6 wherein said spokes of said front wheel are oriented radiallyrelative to said hub.
 8. A bicycle wheel having a center plane andcomprising: a bicycle wheel hub for supporting the wheel relative to anaxle rotatably supported therein, said hub having first and second hubflanges axially displaced from one another, each on the opposite side ofthe wheel center plane from the other, a rim, a given number of pairs ofgroups of first and second spokes, each of said spokes having a firstand a second end connected to one of said hub flanges and to said rim,respectively, so that tension is applied by said first spokes betweenthe first hub flange and a first plurality of groups of points which arecircumferentially spaced substantially evenly around the rim and so thattension is applied by said second spokes between the second hub flangeand a second plurality of groups of points on said rim each of whichpoints is adjacent to but circumferentially offset at least about 0.3inch from the adjacent one of said first plurality of groups of points,adjustable threaded means for adjusting the tension in said spokes,independently of any adjustment to the tension in another spoke, whereineach of said pairs of first and second points on said rim aresufficiently close to each other so that, when said wheel is mounted ona bicycle, that bicycle will have improved resistance to speed shimmy orwobble or wheel induced steering inputs or axle deflection by comparisonwith that bicycle with a conventional wheel comprising a bicycle wheelhub having first and second hub flanges axially displaced from oneanother, each on the opposite side of the wheel center plane from theother, a rim and the given number of pairs of groups of first and secondspokes each having a first and a second end connected to one of the hubflanges and to the rim, respectively, so that tension is applied by thefirst spokes between the first hub flange and a first plurality ofpoints which are circumferentially spaced substantially evenly aroundthe rim and so that tension is applied by the second spokes between thesecond hub flange and a second plurality of points on the rim each ofwhich is positioned halfway between adjacent first points.
 9. The wheelclaimed in claim 8 wherein said spokes are oriented radially relative tosaid hub.
 10. The wheel claimed in claim 8 wherein said spokes areoriented tangentially relative to said hub flanges.
 11. The wheelclaimed in claim 6 wherein said spokes are oriented tangentiallyrelative to said hub flanges.